If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My daughter used to have a real problem with on screen violence or tension. I've tended to keep some movies from her because those things really upset her. Fortunately at 8, she seems to be growing out of this phase. I think reading more advanced stories has helped, like Harry Potter and the Warriors. (While I haven't read the Warriors books, she makes it sound like GoT with feral cats) I'm looking forward to expanding her film repertoire with more PG/PG-13 stuff now. We just need to work around my 4 year old's schedule to make that happen.

Although, I'm still waiting for her to just be quiet and pay attention to the movie; instead of continually asking me what's happening on a 30 second lag time...

Oh yeah, the child's own perception is a huge factor as well. My best friend, who is 30, still can't handle physical violence or any psychological movie (like Interstellar).

As for enjoying Blade Runner/BR2049...The first time I saw the original film was in a class at college. I LOVED the movie, and out of about 40 students only 1 or 2 others liked it. Their ages ranged from 18 to probably around 30, myself being in the higher end of the age bracket. My friend in there (the above mentioned 30 year old's wife) HATED the movie because she didn't understand any of it. Many people agreed with her, and were totally confused with the unicorn ending. There were several interpretations of what that implied, and the two professors were dumb founded from the stupidity that was flowing from people's mouths. I had never seen someone literally drop their jaw before this. Finally, I raised my hand and said the unicorn indicated that Deckard could be a replicant. The two professors clapped and thanked me for explaining that, while the rest of the room murmured among themselves. So yeah....Maybe most people younger than 30 simply just don't "get it".

See -- I still prefer the original implication that Gaff had left it as a message to Deckard about "chasing unicorns" by falling for Rachael. *shrug* I still feel making -- or even just implying -- Deckard's a Replicant undercuts the character and cheapens the story.

I can't remember how people interpreted it, but it wasn't that either. All I can remember is that their ideas were super out there and not story driven at all. I want to say the ideas ranged from "no one really exists" to "it was all a dream", and "maybe we're all *insert something cryptic here*."

I just edited my post as well, the may I worded that implication seemed too definite. Honestly, I like your idea just as much because I don't think he is a replicant.

See -- I still prefer the original implication that Gaff had left it as a message to Deckard about "chasing unicorns" by falling for Rachael. *shrug* I still feel making -- or even just implying -- Deckard's a Replicant undercuts the character and cheapens the story.

Why would Deckard dream of unicorns?....aren't replicants meant to have implanted memories......why would Deckard have memories of a mythological animal

When Deckard finds the Gaffs origami unicorn,...he remembers what Gaff said on the rooftop..."Too bad she wont live, but then again who does".....Deckard nods his head as he understands that Gaff had been there & spared her,...he knew she was there & that Deckard had fallen for her (matchstick man with hard-on),...& she was a unicorn amongst horses......BUT.... on the other hand in Ridleys new version..... Deckard realises that Gaff knows Deckard's Unicorn memories....why would he nod his head......why wouldn't he suddenly freak out as he realuses that he is a replicant all this time & everything he believed in was fake

A unicorn could be interpreted as being virginal also......

The original screen writers purposefully had questions in the script by Rachel to Deckard to make you think that there was a possibility that Deckard was a replicant,.....but were disappointed that Ridley by-passed that level of ambiguity by adding in the stupid unicorn dream sequence

Ford preferred the human falling for the synthetic human, because it brings more meaning to the film.....more human than human.....

It's only supposed to be hinted at, barely, just enough to question ourselves as well as to what we are.
What we do defines us as well. He was nearly a machine with his cold blooded killing, Batty becoming truly human
when he saves Deckard. Batty is really the hero of the film. He saves Deckard in more ways than just his life.
Elegance. Deckard as replicant destroys this and requires awkward complex conspiracy.
Scott's hamhanded handling of this later was pure ego on his part.

Ridly is not allowed to look through the camera while filming because of Union rules

In an interview Ridly says he likes working with European crews better because he can play with the cameras himself.- his crew gets pissed . it takes on a kind of hostile work environment from then on .

Ridly starts phoning it in an thinking about his next project Legend uses blade runner money to developed some unicorn footage .
Why ? Oh that's for a, uh,
a dream sequence yeah that's it .

Years roll by Scott can't leave Blade runner alone because he knows he did not give it the attention it needed at the time.
multiple years and cuts later he has retroactively made Deckard a replicant and inserted the Unicorn footage as an impossible memory or whatever .

In BR2049 the only three things that made me think he was supposed to be a Replicant Are

1 it seems blade runners are replicants ?
2 he just sat there cuffed in the car as it went down in the water . it was just weird, probably just me .
3 no one says Rachel had a half breed or hybrid human baby ,ever . implying by not implying it is 100% Replicant .

.
In BR2049 the only three things that made me think he was supposed to be a Replicant Are

1 it seems blade runners are replicants ?
2 he just sat there cuffed in the car as it went down in the water . it was just weird, probably just me .
3 no one says Rachel had a half breed or hybrid human baby ,ever . implying by not implying it is 100% Replicant .

But hey who knows . the mystery is the best part

If Deckard was a replicant in the first film,....why does he get the **** beat out of him all through the movie....there is a deliberate "More human than human" perception of the Replicants....they can punch their heads through walls,....do gymnastics like professional sportspeople....stick their hands in freezing liquids.....Decard jumps from one building to another & fails,...almost plummeting to his doom,...while a dying replicant makes the same jump effortlessly...even Rachel.....who seems like a lovely girl,....shoots Leon perfectly right in the forehead with the first shot of Deckards pistol.....all enhanced synthetic humans

If you were to create a Blade Runner to hunt down any rogue replicants,...would you engineer a being with such a severe handicap of being weaker,....have less stamina,....a worse shot with a pistol,....& programme it with memories of unicorns......

He is human in the first film,....the contrast of him, hunting the superior enhanced replicants is what make the saving of his life by Batty relevant,....he was beaten at the end of the film

In 2049,....K is a replicant,....he is enhanced,...just like the replicants he is out there to retire....he can bring down Dave Batista.......

Deckard is cuffed in the car,...he struggles with the restraints but cant break free, he isn't strong enough.....he is destined to drown,....K comes to his aid & effortlessly breaks the metal cuffs with his hands

Deckard is a human in the second film

The reproduction of a human/replicant hybrid is more of a breakthrough than a replicant & replicant child......but a replicant & human child is still not 100% normal

If Deckard was awas a replicant
replicant in the first film,....why does he get the **** beat out of him all through the movie....there is a deliberate "More human than human" perception of the Replicants....they can punch their heads through walls,....do gymnastics like professional sportspeople....stick their hands in freezing liquids.....Decard jumps from one building to another & fails,...almost plummeting to his doom,...while a dying replicant makes the same jump effortlessly...even Rachel.....who seems like a lovely girl,....shoots Leon perfectly right in the forehead with the first shot of Deckards pistol.....all enhanced synthetic humans

If you were to create a Blade Runner to hunt down any rogue replicants,...would you engineer a being with such a severe handicap of being weaker,....have less stamina,....a worse shot with a pistol,....& programme it with memories of unicorns......

He is human in the first film,....the contrast of him, hunting the superior enhanced replicants is what make the saving of his life by Batty relevant,....he was beaten at the end of the film

In 2049,....K is a replicant,....he is enhanced,...just like the replicants he is out there to retire....he can bring down Dave Batista.......

Deckard is cuffed in the car,...he struggles with the restraints but cant break free, he isn't strong enough.....he is destined to drown,....K comes to his aid & effortlessly breaks the metal cuffs with his hands

Deckard is a human in the second film

The reproduction of a human/replicant hybrid is more of a breakthrough than a replicant & replicant child......but a replicant & human child is still not 100% normal

J

Yup .

Like I said the only three things that indicated at all are above .

Ridley Scott DECIDED Deckard was a Replicant many years and cuts of the film later !

But devils advocate .
like 30 sec 2 mars kidd's him were you programmed to fall for Rachel ??????

So if, IF he was A Replicant in BD he was designed to impregnate Rachel not fight ?!?!
Is the logic I guess idk just trying to retro logic like Scott because like I said he WAS human to start !

I'm not convinced that Ridley Scott couldn't have decided that Deckard was a replicant during the shoot of the original.
There are scenes that were cut -- with alternate dialogue that asks the question whether Deckard is a replicant..

After Batty's death when Gaff shows up, he not only says "You did a man's job, sir", he continues:
"But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to tell who's who around here".

And later when Deckard is driving with Rachael in the country side. They speak and he is happy. Then she says:
"Do you know what else I think? You and I were made for each other".
And then he stares at her and gets a serious expression.

Yeah it was a tease from the start .
With him being human but with a flicker of doubt in my opinion.

But the driving scene was shot after the movie was released in Europe and they decided a " happy " ending would work better in the States .
And on a side note in the car drive ending everything but the interior of the car was unused footage from the shining .

So they ended up at the overlook that's where the baby comes from in BR2049 Damn ghost baby !?!

The true answer is Deckard a Replicant ?

It depends which cut you watch but I believe he is human in at least 3 versions maybe 4 .
So he's human in more versions of the film than he is Replicant !

There is a third option which on repeated viewings of the films I would like to believe is true, its only my theory but its a strong fit with the overall mythology.

WARNING!!!!!! Once you see it like this you won't be able to unthink it about the films though (or at least I can't now).

There is this huge emphasis on personal and collective memories in both the films which is striking powerful .

What is real , what is false what is implanted and how all determine self identity, both in a human or a replicant.

Now try watching them with this in mind :

Given that replicants are almost exactly like humans (given a few editted gene sequences) so much so that you can "implant" a human memory into a replicant, then it MUST follow the same technique CAN be used on a human being.

Now watch the original "Blade Runner".

Deckard HAD quit his job and yet suddenly finds himself drummed back into the department and the interview with Rachel. In 2049 there is more than a hint that the whole of the Deckard/ Rachel relationship is a deliberate experiment set up by Tyrell.
Photographs in both Deckards and Leons apartments are featured prominently and certainly act as strong triggers in Deckard memories (that photo of Rachel and her mother that moves, all the others scattered around the apartment, including one that looks very old but strangely like Rachel, even down to her period hair style)
In her statement to Deckard after she wakes him she says that she can remember playing the piano, (and what are the odds that Deckard just happens to have a piano in his apartment for her to use) but she isn't sure if its hers or Tyrells niece.
So its true that they can take human memories at this point and implant them into the more advanced replicants. Tyrell says so, they act as a "cushions" for them in the speech he gives Deckard (the famous "How can it not know what it is").

So its stand to reason they have probably managed to do the same (and the reverse) on normal human beings, but Tyrell would keep that absolutely dead quiet. If you think about the implications of memory transfer , if a human moved all his memories into a replicant body without a retirement date, you are talking immortality of a sort. Or you can use false memories that can be implanted to mislead and manipulate a subject.

Anyway, if Deckard has had implanted memories as the unicorn dream sequence suggests, that would allow Deckard to be human . And it removes nearly every other single problem in the two films whilst allowing the ambiguities to exist. Gaff discovered this ,we know that with the origami unicorn message and later ,in 2049, perhaps the sheep hint( and sorry what I have done here, I've just Bladerunnered/ Incepted you)

This is what I love about the original film. The ambiguity and different interpretations has kept us all arguing the truth for the past 30 years; which I think was the actual point of the film. It’s supposed to be ambiguous. I guess the right answer is the one you believe to be true. In my opinion Deckard is a replicant. I love the irony in all he says to Rachel at the start of the film, not realising he himself is a replicant.
“Memory’s. implants.”
“I’m sorry, you’re not a replicant, bad joke”
“How can it not know what it is?”

To me the fact that they are using a replicant who doesn’t know he’s a replicant to hunt down his own kind has a twisted deliciousness to it which makes the plot all that much thicker.

If we’re talking final cut, there is no ambiguity IMO as Scott has clearly said in his version deckard is replicant; the dreaming of a unicorn, gaffs origami at the end etc.

Also 2049 as I think mentioned already bolsters this view yet still leaves it a little open ended, which again IMO was masterfully done.

There is a third option which on repeated viewings of the films
I would like to believe is true, but its only my theory but its a strong fit with the overall mythology.
WARNING!!!!!! Once you see it like this you won't be able to unthink it about the films though.

The huge emphasis on all collective memory in both the films is striking powerful .

What is real and what is false and how both determine self identity, either in a human or a replicant.

Now try watching them with this option in mind :

Given that replicants are almost exactly like humans (given a few editted gene sequences) if you can "implant" a human memory into a replicant, then it MUST follow the same technique CAN be used on a human being.

Now watch the original "Blade Runner".

Deckard HAD quit his job and yet suddenly finds himself drummed back into the department and the interview with Rachel. With 2049 there is more than a hint the whole of the Deckard/ Rachel relationship is a deliberate experiment by Tyrell.
Photographs in both Deckards and Leons apartments feature prominently and certainly act as strong triggers in Deckard memories (that photo of Rachel and her mother that moves,all the other scattered in the apartment, including one that looks very old but strangely like Rachel, even down to her period hair style)
In her statement to Deckard after she wakes him she says that she can remember playing the piano, (and what are the odds that Deckard just happens to have a piano in his apartment for her to use) but she isn't sure if its her or Tyrells niece.
So it must be true that they can take human memories at this point and implant them into the more advanced replicants. Tyrell says so, they act as a "cushion".
So its stand to reason they have probably managed to do the same or the reverse on normal human beings, but Tyrell would keep that absolutely dead quiet. If you think about the implications , if a human moved all his memories into a replicant body you are talking immortality of a sort.
Anyway, that would allow Deckard to be human but also have implanted false memories. And it removes nearly every other single problem in the two films whilst allowing the ambiguities to exist( and sorry what I have done here, I've Bladerunnered/ Incepted you)

And hey Eagle. Nice to see that you back again!

Man get out of my head , I just started speculating today OK what if it WAS an experiment by Tyrell ?

Him being retired and called back fits why he has no desk , locker what not. They pay off the chief to act like an old friend and kick off the experiment , then there is gaff he could be the REAL blade runner also he just seem to just follow Deckard around and watch him .
someone said earlier why would Deckard be human strength if he was built to fight , what if he is not but like Leto said built to to fall for Rachel .

Time line
Deckard gets the job he goes to Tyrrell and meets Rachel , leaves started investigation leading him to the dance club and the first replicant he has to kill .

What does he do ?

Call Rachel and asks her to join him, she declines, he then kills the replicant !

What if Rachel said O.K. I'm on the way ????????

Would he have just met her and never went after his first target after taking the trouble of tracking her down ?

After he kills the first replicant Leon shows up .
He just happen to be there , bad luck , then of course good luck that Rachel showed to save Deckard . lol

But looking from the company point of view .
He almost took the bait withwith Rachel before ever coming into contact with even the first replicant .
Who was only a pleasure model and not a trained fighter like Batty, and I suppose Leon ?!?
So even if he does confront her he has a gun she will most likely run. so from the company point of view Deckard would be relatively safe ..
Then boom he and Rachel went at it Deckards part of the experiment is complete , he is expendable after that point .

BUT Tyrrell is killed .
So the orders kind of stop on the experiment .

Gaff's like whatever I'm not getting paid to drop him . let's him go .

IDK there could be a case for it lol!

Damn corporations !!!

Of course in the book he is human so that will forever taint my view even though if you filmed the book word for word most people would not recognize it as blade runner its that different .

I got a screener copy this week and I thought I’d put I on while cleaning my office... ended up just sitting down and watching it again. A lot of the plot gaps I had trouble with before seemed smoother. Either way, I really like this movie and never thought a sequel could work. Maybe the screener didn’t have the best audio mix, but the sound design really benefited from being in a theater.